The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The ideal conditions for having a child
Chaos Punk
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
A friend of mine is going to be turning 30 this year. She has no children, and no husband, but wants to settle down and raise a family. Her peers have been warning her since she was in her early 20's that she needed a husband and a child before it gets too late. Now that she is serious about planning conception, she is bombarded with sentiments that it is already way too late for her to have her first child.
I've supported her decision to stay single all through her 20's despite all of the office girls bragging about their little bundles of joy and their happy PTA lifestyles. Apparently it's finally made an impression on her, and she wants to join in.
The debate is, what is the ideal age for a woman to conceive, considering social implications and biological nature?
I argue that if a woman is serious about procreation, she can have a child younger, but the youngest ought to be 25 years old. Ideally, biologically and socially, the ideal norm should be 30.
What say you?
I've supported her decision to stay single all through her 20's despite all of the office girls bragging about their little bundles of joy and their happy PTA lifestyles. Apparently it's finally made an impression on her, and she wants to join in.
The debate is, what is the ideal age for a woman to conceive, considering social implications and biological nature?
I argue that if a woman is serious about procreation, she can have a child younger, but the youngest ought to be 25 years old. Ideally, biologically and socially, the ideal norm should be 30.
What say you?
We are all the man behind the curtain.... pay no attention to any of us
Chaos Punk on
0
Posts
Arch,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_goGR39m2k
Also, it's not until your late 20s - early 30s that most people are financially able to properly care for a child, and frankly in the US both parents must be responsible and gainfully employed to actually afford it. Having the dough is critical - my 2 kids cost $18,000/year for daycare and we get it cheap for my area!
It's too bad she didn't spend those wild 20s tracking down the perfect partner, because it's really hard to find someone that you can rely on to do that with you.
Sociologically, older women tend to be more secure financially and career-wise. They are also more likely to suffer from post-partum depression after childbirth. Recent studies on advanced maternal age indicate that maternal age alone has minimal or no impact on overall child wellbeing. Even in teenage pregnancies, the outcomes of child well-being are more due to socio-economic status and ethnicity than age.
There is no "ideal norm" for childbearing, either. At least, one that can be set in stone. One of the ways we can track human evolution is the birth rates and maternal age of the human race over the past few centuries. Maternal age of first birth is indeed getting older, and the trend seems to be continuing (the mean age in some European countries of first birth is approaching 30 right now). The studies on advanced maternal age seem to indicate that this isn't only due to sociological factors, either. Humans are living longer overall, and that is also extending their "window of fecundity".
EDIT: Here's a chart of the percent of live births to women over the age of 35 in New York City between 1998 and 2007:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/ms/bimt-advanced-maternal-age.pdf
It is divided among ethnicity (whites are much more likely to give birth over the age of 35 than other ethnic groups). It backs up the 1 in 5 number that is thrown around on the internet, although the false claim is "first birth" since the 20% is total live births and isn't divided into First and Subsequent births.
Biologically, I wouldn't call 30 the "ideal age" currently. You run a significantly (the "scientific" significant, meaning interesting, not the common wisdom significant, meaning "massively huge!!!") higher risk of chromosomal abnormalities and miscarriage rate at that age compared to 20 and 25. This may change in 200 or so years, who knows?
You know you can be in a relationship and not have kids, there is no need to be single through an entire decade of your best years.
That said, finding a suitable mate takes time. She better haul ass because the biological clock is ticking.
I understand that it varies from woman to woman, but there is generally an accepted norm. Obviously having children when you're 50 deviates from that norm, or perhaps even if you conceive earlier than 18. I'm skeptical of the criticisms that she faces from her peers who are family-oriented, well-rounded intelligent people. I haven't researched much of the scientific aspects, but it seems to me evolution is making people stay younger. Perhaps it's sociology. When I went to the dentist about my wisdom teeth removal, there was some 17 year old kid in there whose mother said he just lost his last baby tooth. Most of the guys that work with me that are in their early- mid 20's still live at home with their parents. The baby-boomer type norm of women having children when they're in their early 20's stands to be questioned, I think. My girlfriend is 25, and says she does not want kids right now... that she would rather wait 'til she was 35, and people literally gasp in astonishment, Why would you wait that long!?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s
edit:,8th times the charm
Also Down's is only 1 of a variety of chromosomal disorders.
http://www.genetics.edu.au/factsheet/genetics/factsheet/fs17
is a pretty decent summary.
The other thing that needs to be considered is having more than 1 kid. I think health optimally theres spose to be at least a year between pregnancies so if you want 2-3 kids and you don't have the first one till 35. The last one is going to land up there on the curve.
I don't think it's evolution that's keeping folks younger, but medicine. I have a friend who's 13 year old child has not lost a lot of her baby teeth because of braces on the teeth around them holding them in place. You can't argue that we're becoming mature later when girls are starting secondary sexual characteristics and even menarche as early as eight years old - that's diet and probably hormones in their food supply. Thirty five as a "late" number is a social norm based on a generation who grew up watching Brady Bunch reruns and their parents' relative ages when they were born.
I'll be 40 next year, and do not have any biological children. My 18 year old stepson is living with us currently, and I'm enjoying the finishing process of his mothering. My OB/GYN is still of the opinion that I'm physically OK to go if we want to pursue fertility treatments, and one of my best friends is 40 and expecting her second child (the first is 18 months old). If anything, there's a stigma for getting pregnant when you're a teenager, and a stigma of sorts for not having a brood when you're in your mid-30's, for getting pregnant out of wedlock, only having one child, or having more than two or three children, and finally you're just odd if you do it later, but not shocking.
If a woman said to me "You know, I haven't met the right guy, but I have a good job and I want to have a child," I'd say "Get'em, girl!" Likewise, if a man with the same situation said to me "I want to raise a child, but haven't found the right woman, I'd direct him to the nearest adoption agency. Being a single parent is hard, but not impossible, and starting a child with a mate is no guarantee that the mate will be there til the kid flies out of the nest. But if you think you will regret NOT raising a child, then do whatever you are willing to do to make that happen.
In short, IMO it's less about ideal age than about the desire and ability to raise another human, and the social pressure is basically a lot of people expressing opinions about things that are none of their business.
I say that it's none of our fucking business.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
you're right, but it's not going to negate the fact that there is going to be a societal norm. To defend that norm, biology and sociology (economics, maturity, etc) are going to be utilized. Personally I would rather open a pitbull rescue than father a child, which means I'm a social pariah when it comes to the square community. Being married with children does get you a lot more respect from society.
It's none of our business in the sense that we shouldn't tell particular women when they can or can't have kids. If you think this means that there is no such thing as a better or worse time for a woman to have a kid, that's a bit daft, and I don't think discussing the subject is really out of bounds.
Unless you think that a sixteen year old girl still living at home and a fifty year old woman diagnosed with terminal cancer and twelve months to live are just as viable for motherhood as a 28 year old middle class married woman.
That's not respect, it's the lack of an obvious thing to criticize or gossip about, so they dig for other things to criticize. If anything, there's more respect inherent in being a "family man," than being a "family woman" - which isn't even a common term in our language. Being a "wife and mother" implies an economic status that allows her not to work outside the home - and a distinct lack of intelligence or ambition (she's a "breeder"), or a Tiger Mom obsession with her children. Being a "soccer mom" is almost a negative, also implying a certain standard of living. "Career mom's" have "latchkey kids."
So the societal norm is that humans find things to poke each other in the eye about, usually in the nastiest way possible, about things that are none of their business.
I think that it's a personal decision between a woman, her family, and her doctor.
I think that as much as we can have a valid discussion, there are an awful lot of people who are waaaaaaay too interested in telling women (either in general or in particular) what they should and should not do with their bodies.
I think that this sort of discussion is an open invitation to body policing and the ecological fallacy.
I think that there's a way of having this discussion in a manner that isn't going to support body policing, and leading with the question "what's the ideal age to have a child?" isn't it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why do you think the biological ideal 30????
Fertility starts to decline by 25 and pelvic bones fuse sometime between 20 and 25. Your risk of certain cancers decrease the earlier you have your first kid. Biologically, it seems to me that there is a lot of that early 20's is ideal.
While we do have the medical technology to get around most of the above issues I don't see how that makes it biologically ideal for a woman to have children later in life.
Women should have kids whenever they decide it is the right time for them to have kids.
*Assuming legal age.
**Sperm banks can do wonders I hear.
A lot of things are between a person and his or her doctor, but that doesn't stop us from having opinions. I feel no guilt in judging and mocking Pamela Anderson for her floatation devices or deciding what an advisable age for procreation is for the general public. Hell, I'll say right now that octomom needs counciling and that women having children after 40 are putting their kids at risk.
Your post is the exact principal that people try to use when they claim that their first amendment rights are being violated when they are criticized for being racist.
I agree with Feral.
This topic is sexist as hell and I'm quite surprised to see it being treated as a valid discussion.
That isn't really true in the developed world. When health outcomes for infants decline in the aggregate, the state is almost assuredly going to be footing at least part of the bill for those poor outcomes. Which I don't really view as a call to arms to mandate birthing prior to age 35 or some such, but it is something that policy makers are going to consider when looking at the issue.
A lot of people are curious as to what people think the ideal age to procreate should be, there's nothing inherently sexist about the topic. It's also interesting to see the biological evidence and research done that I wasn't familiar with prior to this post. My girlfriend, for example, wants to have children when she is 35, people disagree with her, and it's good to see if there is any weight to the objection. There's actually another topic on google asking the same question. It isn't bigotry to be exposed to other people's opinions and scientific facts on the matter.
This is kind of interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus
I'll have to go dig for the data on this but the dirty little secret of the developed world is that waiting into your mid 30's to have children makes it signifcantly more difficult to do so naturally. It isn't coincidence that celebrities turn to IVF when they are having children following their prolonged acting careers.
Long story short: Don't wait to have your first child until you are 35 unless you want to shell out $15,000 to conceive a baby.
If your Typical Woman is middle class and white in the US (and similar cultures), then yeah, ~28 is generally seen as the ideal, providing a solid intersection of economic position, maturity, and social aspects.
But that's kind of a narrow view. That window shifts younger for women with fewer prospects, for instance. No reason to hold off if you're not going past high school or a trade cert.
And where are the men in this picture?
So I could have kids when I was older without risk of Down's etc. I wouldn't want children until I was, like, 40
At least one of you knows that older fathers can pass on birth defects too.
And the whole issue is being discussed in here in a capitalist framework that frankly makes me hells of uncomfortable. Oh noooo, your baby might cost an extra hundred in taxes, quelle horreur! Posh and Feral are right.
But that's just my personal feelings on the matter - a conceiving woman is terribly unattractive.
Otherwise:
This.
If a woman has trouble conceiving past 35 because of her life choices is the state responsible for subsidizing medical costs so that she can get pregnant?
Your "long story short" is an exaggeration. Celebrities have very little to do with the discussion other than a warped overall awareness of the subject matter through mass media. From 2006 data, assisted fertility accounted for 55k births (this includes hormonal treatments as well as IVF), about 61% of which were above the age 35. Out of approximately 250k (or so) births in the group of women age over 35, that's around 13% that were conceived by assisted means.
EDIT: Refining my numbers, based on the CDC's ART (assisted reproductive technology) study 2006 here:
http://www.cdc.gov/ART/ART2006/508PDF/2006ART.pdf
This is a 584 page document! Lots of info.
And the CDC NCHS overview here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf
102 pages about Babies in America in 2006. Sheesh.
In the US? No, it isn't. Other countries and under private insurers may vary. Of course, if a woman waits until she's 35+ and there are additional medical costs that are subsidized by the state, well who fucking cares? Plenty of people do high risk behavior (smoking, drinking, Xtreme sports, going outside) that the state ends up subsidizing the medical costs for, so why is it all of a sudden some sort of major policy issue if a woman does it with regards to having children?
I'm reading 25% from 25-30, 15% from 30-35, that means 7.5% from 35+ using your data. The % is per cycle.
Yes there are plenty of factors at stake. But I'm pointing out that it becomes more difficult to naturally the older a woman gets. I think that's notable. The assisted means is likely so low because it's so expensive to actually use these treatments. Celebrities have lots of money. A typical woman does not.
Freezing unfertilized eggs sort of kind of works better than nothing but it isn't perfect and it isn't cheap.
Also, while down's syndrome is more common with older mothers, it isn't rare with mother's of any age. Most children with down's syndrome are born to mothers under the age of 30.
Also, the people stating that the balance is between genetic risk and financial stability are missing a whole hell of a lot of factors. The risk to the woman's health changes with age, the flexibility of people's schedules change with age, the effects of having a child on career prospects change with age and fertility changes with age.
In regards to a career, in a lot of ways, college and graduate school are the ideal times to have kids. You have a flexibile schedule, you can take them with you in an emergency, you have the flexibility to miss lectures, and you tend to have a large social support network. And the kids are then old enough that day care is waaayy cheaper by the time you start working full time.
Whilst that is to an extent problematic, I agree with Jeffe and McDermot insofar as sorry, but a sixteen year old doesn't have the maturity or experience to sensibly make the choice to be a parent. And that can, and should be judged by society.
Because now it's gonna cost 40 grand to have a baby instead of 20 grand? The government justifies taxing cigarettes and alcohol to offset these costs. Should we now tax women having babies over the age of 35?
I don't know, is it? Why is that the first and most important question going?
You are looking at the numbers and thinking that every woman has an equal chance of conceiving. That just isn't the case. Some women will conceive every cycle they have sex at the right time at age 39 and other women will never conceive naturally at age 31.
Are you disputing the idea that more couples will need to seek out fertility treatments if they try to conceive at age 35 than if they had tried to conceive at age 30?
Yes, how dare people acknowledge that decisions have real world ramifications. We should pretend we live in the world of Eat Prey Love and Into the Wild, where you can go find yourself without ever having to worry about how it might impact on your rich, white, American privilege.